[wellylug] Linux as selling point.

[jumbophut]

On 8/10/05, David Murray wrote:
> If you're distributing software that is a derivative work based on GPL'd
> software, then yes - both source and binaries should be available - and
> available under the GPL licence. But if you're distributing an
> electronic gadget that has unmodified GPL'd software included as a
> built-in component part of the gadget... - that I see as remaining
> perfectly within the spirit of the GPL - which was designed to keep Free
> software from becoming un-free proprietary software.
> 

The GPL itself says you may only "copy and distribute the Program" if
you provide various forms of access to the source (s.3).  The program
does not require any modification to make the relevant section of the
GPL apply.  If you read the GPL you will also see that one of its
purposes is to ensure "that you receive source code or can get it if
you want it" (Preamble).

You can make a tenuous argument that you are distributing a piece of
hardware, and not a program (not even a derivative work of a program),
and therefore are not covered by the GPL.  But I put it to you that
you are taking a big risk if you do so.  Firstly, it's obviously not
what the authors of the GPL intended (read the Preamble), since it
would let people escape the GPL entirely.  Secondly, there is already
legal precedent to suggest hardware vendors are covered (see below). 
And thirdly, judges don't often take kindly to having their
intelligence insulted.